Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-05

["Vijay K. Gurbani" <[e-mail]>]

On 05/18/2010 12:46 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft ...  draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-05

Suresh: Thank you for the review.  More inline.

> Minor
> =====
> * The draft also fixes the ABNF for IPv4 addresses i.e. the
> <IPv4address> rule but is silent about why it is doing so. I think I
> understand why it is being fixed but I would like the authors to clarify.
>
> The old rule read
[...]
> It would be nice if you can some explanatory text in Section 2.
> Something like
>
> "The <IPv4address> rule in RFC3261 allowed invalid IPv4 addresses to be
> specified and still be compliant to the ABNF. (e.g. An URI such as
> sip:bob@444.555.666.777:88 would still be considered valid.) The
> resolution for this error is simply to use the correct ABNF for the
> <IPv4address> production rule from Appendix A of RFC3986 [3]."

Instead of putting this in Section 2, which discusses problems with
IPv6 addresses, I will put the above text as an indented text in
S3.1.  Something like the following:

OLD:
    Accordingly, this document updates RFC3261 as follows:  the
    ...
    Thus this document also mandates that the <hexpart>,
    <hexseq>, and <hex4> production rules MUST be deleted from the ABNF
    of RFC3261.

NEW:
    Accordingly, this document updates RFC3261 as follows:  the
    ...
    Thus this document also mandates that the <hexpart>,
    <hexseq>, and <hex4> production rules MUST be deleted from the ABNF
    of RFC3261.

       The use of the <IPv4address> production rule from
       RFC3986 no longer allows syntactically valid --- though
       semantically invalid --- SIP URIs of the form
       "sip:bob@444.555.666.777".

Is that okay?

Thanks,

- vijay